Danny, I an not "poking" at Scott. Let me give you the run down; (Look into the objective information)
I made an edit (logo update) and Scott reverted it. I did not take it personally, but he did not leave a revert summery, when he should have. (Your rules, not mine) I politely asked why, here; http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:163744 More than a week went by, and he did not answer. So for the record, I stated that I did not appreciate it. Then he blocks me. He now claims I was being a "pest"? Really? I ask you Danny, what did I do wrong? *more than a week* goes by, and he does not answer me. Is that really professional behavior for an admin?

For the first time ever, I tried to handle this by myself, and I get blocked for speaking my mind.
If an admin asked a member a question, and they did not answer, would that not prove that they didn't want to communicate? An admin would have done the same thing I did, say that they did not appreciate it.

Danny, you told me that you would look into it, and you never got back to me. At that point, I felt like I was being toyed with.
Danny, when you did not answer me, I took it up here;http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:164194

Then, Scott leaves me this message; http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:164256 (which did not address any of my questions) I reply to him back, saying that he misunderstood my position, and he never acknowledged it.

Fact: This is not the first time that I have politely asked Scott a question on his page, and he does not answer, ever.

In this particular situation, he repeatedly failed to directly answer my questions, then finally, (he obviously got fed up) he says that I was blocked for being a "pest". I waited *over a week* before making my "I don't appreciate this" statement, how is *that* being a "pest"?

Danny, I ask you, how am I the pest, when I ask a question, and he never answers me? Is it unreasonable to expect an answer within a week of posting my question? Especially since he had logged onto the wiki a few times since I first asked the question. We all get notification when someone posts something on our message walls. He was obviously ignoring me.

I truly believe that Scott has abused his powers as a admin. He had no valid reason to block me. (Look into the facts and the objective information)

From the very beginning, I was civil. I was patient. Tell me Danny, would you appreciate it if you asked a question to a member, and more than a week goes by, and you get no response or acknowledgement? Wouldn't you assume that they did not want to communicate? We all know that communication is important on a wiki.

Danny, I have noticed that whenever I have had an issue with Scott in the past, you have always tried to downplay it, almost like you were protecting him. Please ask yourself, is this really professional behavior on his part?

Again I ask you, how was I being a "pest"? I politely ask a question. I wait for an answer.
More than week goes by, I get no answer, so for the record, I say that I do not appreciate him not answering me. And then he blocks me, reasoning that I was a "pest"? How is that fair? Is it professional for an admin to leave a member clueless for weeks?

Danny, I only want to hear from you. But one thing is for sure, I will not be coming back to this wiki. I believe that I was treated unfairly, and that an admin abused his powers.
There are other wikis on the network that I have gotten interested in, and I'll give my attention to those. (Plus, I have finally gotten involved with Wikipedia)

Hey Fred -- it's been tough for us to really help with this because of this conversation that we had in March. About nine months ago, Scott reverted something that you'd done -- you felt insulted and slighted -- you got me, Wendy and Jon involved -- and at the end of the day, you decided that it really wasn't that big of a deal.

At the time, you wrote: "Mistakes were made, lessons were learned. I just want to put this behind me, and I don't want to hear about it anymore... So please spread the word and if at all possible, please delete some of my previous comments on Scott's wall, most of the stuff was just rambling I would rather that it not stay around. Just please let everyone know that I am sorry and regret that this happened."

What's happening right now is exactly the same situation. There's a logo on the Walt Disney Company page that shows Mickey and the company name. You replaced it with a very similar logo that wasn't quite as good, for a couple reasons. The logo you uploaded had a bigger file size, but you didn't trim the white space, so it appears smaller in the article. It also looks a little more jagged, because it's shrinking down the image.

On a more subjective level, I think the logo that's there looks nicer -- the Mickey pose is more interesting, the red in the logo picks up the color from Mickey's shorts, and it looks like the two elements are interacting with each other, rather than just sitting next to each other.

So we had a picture that was perfectly fine; you uploaded a new version that was very similar but lower quality. Scott saw it, sighed, and reverted. He could have written the preceding two paragraph explanation in the edit summary, but he didn't bother.

Yes, Scott has done that before, and it's pissed you off. But when exactly the same situation came up in March, it ended with you apologizing and saying that you regretted blowing it out of proportion.

You've created another tempest in a teapot, getting fixated on a tiny and irrelevant change, and blowing it up into a big problem that requires the attention of five different admins. You announced that you were leaving the site in March; you're announcing it again now. On the internet, that's called "flouncing" -- threatening to leave an online community so that people will beg you to stay.

Obviously, we're happy to have you contributing to the site. You've added a lot, and we're grateful. But we don't want to go through an episode like this every six months.

Danny;
All of this could have been avoided if I had been told right from the beginning the reason why it was undone. (As per the wiki rules; "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.")
Since that was not done, I simply asked why, out of curiosity. Asking a question and expecting an answer did not seem unreasonable to me.
I did not mean to create a "tempest in a teapot" but I felt that my question was left ignored. I did not see any reason why my question could have not been answered when I first asked. Plus, I found being called a "pest" insulting. This whole ordeal could have been prevented for all of us. I didn't realize that admins considered questions an undesirable thing. That is the impression I got.

Now that I have been given an explanation, I understand completely. It would have been nice to have gotten that explanation when I first asked. I have no idea why it was considered such a big deal that I asked for the reason. (But I certainly hope that you could enlighten me on that.)